Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

wonkavader (605434) writes 'Lawrence Lessig's MAYDAY.US Super PAC to end all Super PACs (and more) is now on its second round of funding. The PAC has been reported on here before, but now the numbers are bigger. They hit their $1 million first goal easily, but now they aim to get another $5 million in the same time period. Lessig says that he's arranged for matching, again. It seems like the goals will be even higher in 2016: "For 2014, our goal is to raise $12 million and use it to make fundamental reform the key issue in five congressional races. And we'll apply what we learn then to 2016."'

We are going to get money out of politics by spending money.. I support the goal, but it just seems to shift where the money is coming from. The idea may fail if those who get in dont actually wanna lose that money, so put up a fake fight to change it.

Money isn't the problem, it is simply a tool. Accumulated power is the problem. Money exposes and is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. I don't care about money in politics, I care about power. As long as power accumulates power, the system will become more dysfunctional.

The solution to power accumulation by sending power back to the people themselves. The solution is to take power and responsibility and put it back on the people, not the politicians. However too many people are willing to tr

If they succeed in getting the money out of politics, we will still be faced with incumbents having a disproportionate amount of power in staying in office.

For me to root for the Mayday PAC, they must include implementing term limits on congress as one of their goals. If we don't get that, their "getting money out of politics" will solve nothing. We'll still end up with ancient geezers who have been in office forever writing crappy law about copy

As long as we have money in politics, does it matter if the rep is named Alice, Bob, or Charlie? They all vote with the money anyway. They're basically interchangeable. We MUST get the money out of politics.

Bingo. If there are millions of dollars in subsidies at stake or a multi-million dollar firm, paying a bunch of lawyers to take a bunch of lawyer-politicians to dinner and on vacations.

Force Congress to work securely from their respective state houses (make the lobbyists travel if they want to influence) and simplify the tax code (a recommendation of the President's Simpson-Bowles commission which only the GOP has embraced) and you'll go a long way to limit influence.

I call bullshit. (not to you personally, but the idea)Money is NOT the issue. It has nothing at all to do with the problem.

The problem, my dear fellows, is accountability. Mainly the fact that the US in a general sense, has none. There are zero consequences for these guys when they break the law. In fact, there is only incentive for them to do it.

The answer? Simple.Public service should be considered public service, regardless whether you "join" the military or attempt to "join" the congress. What happens i

The Anti-Corruption Act [anticorruptionact.org] would go a long way towards helping. Lobbying is the major way that corporations influence legislation, and it needs to be completely stopped. It needs to be criminalized.

they must include implementing term limits on congress

I completely agree, that is long overdue. We have people currently in Congress who have been there for 40 or 50 years and have become millionaires because of it. That is not public service, that is a career. That needs to end also, there needs to be a strict limit of years of service covering both branches of Congress. If you've served 20 years in Congress, you are not eligible to get elected again. All the way back to the beginning, George Washington refused to run for a third term. A few others ran, but no one succeeded until FDR. After his death, the 22nd Amendment made the 2 term limit permanent instead of tradition. Term limits for Congress are long, long overdue.

The difficult thing about implementing any of this, whether it is banning lobbying or establishing term limits or banning corporate donations or whatever needs to happen in order to help, is that we are relying on Congress to limit themselves. Since the obvious goal for many of them is to remain in power, that's clearly an uphill battle.

I'm not waiting for a perfect solution. The Mayday PAC is a good start and I want to (and have) shown support. If it fails, and someone else decides to step up and take the leadership role, I'll support them too. If you're going to sit there and wait for a perfect solution then, well, you'll die before that happens. Many, many people want to see change, what we need is a good leader.

Why do you support the "publicly finance" of elections ("publicly finance all elections in our country")???

Because I believe elections that can be bought fundamentally undermine the stated goals of a democratic society.

You propose to take my tax dollars to give to politicians to convince me to vote for them so they can take more of my tax dollars?

Yes.

Why do I need more robocalls that circumvent 'do not call' efforts?

That's a loaded question. I don't know, when are you going to stop beating your wife?

Why do I need more subsidized junk mail?

Ditto.

Why do I need to pay for more commercials to skip? (and is it theft if I paid for that commercial to begin with?)

And again.

There are problems in this country, but a plan to take more tax dollars by force is not something I would support.

Indeed, you're entitled to such a stance. I'm not sure what this has to do with WOLF-PAC, though. If you believe their goal can best be described as "to take more tax dollars by force" then you haven't quite managed to understand them.

Keep in mind their reform will GUT the first amendment. All political speech will get routed through the government. The inch you think you're giving will soon be a mile.

Let me clarify. Wolf PAC is an American political action committee formed with the goal of "ending corporate personhood and publicly financing all elections in our country", to include the restriction of large monetary donations to political candidates, parties, and groups.

That being said, the quote you post is not the text of the propopsed amendment. I know that because there is no proposed amendment. We're not at that stage yet, with only a single state's legislature voting in favor of a constitutional

"*Note: The finished legislation will be worded differently and have to account for inflation, etc. This is simply to point the legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here."

From the URL you linked to. Reading comprehension for the win.

If you actually thought that was the verbatim text of the legislation, you must not read legislation very often. It needs to pass through the legalese encoder several times before it's even sponsored.

The legalese that surrounds the actual amendment may look ugly and all, but all amendments so far have been pretty straightforward in their wording and the quoted text is no more or less complex than those examples so why should anyone think that it will need any further work?

Actually, I should have phrased my post better. It does technically rescind "personhood", but not corporate charters. The personhood is a relatively minor interpretation at the edges of the issue.

That's where we disagree. WOLF-PAC is not some fringe group trying to abolish the corporation. WOLF-PAC is a single-issue grass-roots effort to undo the damage done by recent SCOTUS rulings. Corporate personhood is the very core of the issue.

Why doesn't Wolf-Pac support freeing the EM spectrum to the states and the people? Why not a large citizen/anything goes band? You would keep the MSM owned by the MIC. You think they care if tax dollars get funnelled to them directly?

Because those issues have nothing to do with elected political office being up for sale to the highest bidder (or very little to do with it, at best). The strength of WOLF-PAC is in focusing on the task at hand and not getting bogged down with everyone else's pet issues

The single issue is getting money out of politics. Simply abolishing corporate personhood (in the context of campaign contributions) would effectively outlaw campaigning, as corporate funds are what pay for the overwhelming majority of political campaigns today. Since the goal is not to get rid of democratic elections, but merely to remove the corporate influence, it is thereby necessary to secure an alternate unbiased source of campaign financing. Public financing meets these requirements. Think, AC. Think

Naturally he means it's totally unfair that a union, with hundreds of thousands of members, can tell all those members that they think it would be really great to donate to party X.

And then all those members can go and donate up to the individual maximum, and tend to do so because they actually like their union.

And it's totally unfair that the CEO of the company they all work for, can't use the profits of their labor, to unilaterally decide to give an unlimited amount of money from the company's coffers to the opposing party, and call it a business expense, that also just so happens to align to his personal interests as well.

I mean, how is that democracy? When the masses of people can popularly choose to support a politician and not be completely overridden by individual capital interests?

You know, I think you are on to something there. if that is the end goal then it must be stopped. The founding fathers were anti-democracy http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com] http://www.godlikeproductions.... [godlikeproductions.com] http://www.thecommentfactory.c... [thecommentfactory.com] and we, too, should be against the tyranny of the masses and promote the enlightened government by and for the elite. To this end it is imperative that the general public be kept uneducated and in the dark -- and above all, disempowered.

Democracy is inherently problematic, and subject to hysteria mob rule. Two Wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Remember, Hitler was elected by popular support.

Tyranny arises when the "group" has more power and more rights than the individual. It is able to take from one to give to the group. Our society has long passed the line towards tyranny, and that is the problem. The group has more meaning and power than the individual. Thus the rise of the PACs and SuperPacs and all the other forms of Grou

Ahhh, here we have the stereotypical liberal... present him with the facts and he still can't see the truth. Many of the wealthiest on the above mentioned lists were born into poverty and worked their way out. Did they receive a "free" public education? Probably, but so does pretty much everyone else in the US.

and we, too, should be against the tyranny of the masses and promote the enlightened government by and for the elite.

Those in government automatically form an "elite" no matter who they are; that's the nature of government and power. I prefer that elite not to be a professional class of politicians, who use government as a way to substitute for having a real job and enrich themselves and their buddies at the tax payer's expense.

Naturally he means it's totally unfair that a union, with hundreds of thousands of members, can tell all those members that they think it would be really great to donate to party X.

And then all those members can go and donate up to the individual maximum, and tend to do so because they actually like their union.

Sort of like how the "Big Evil Companies(TM)" spend money on "advertising" which expresses "opinion" which unfairly brainwashes unwilling, hive-minded thralls into voting for a candidate that they really didnt want.

I've always been curious if it was possible for our system to eventually work itself out without the need for a bloody revolution. There has been so much malinvestment lately at the hands of entrenched political groups. I would be thrilled to see the US fix itself through its own system. My pessimism says otherwise though, but who knows.

I've always been curious if it was possible for our system to eventually work itself out without the need for a bloody revolution.

Sure, countries transition from free societies to welfare states or socialism all the time; I have no doubt we can accomplish the same thing. It's easy: people just vote in ever bigger benefits and public spending.

The sh*t hits the fan when the money runs out and totalitarians get elected based on empty promises to fix things. We still have a ways to fall before we get there.

I think one of the biggest problems with America, besides most of it's people not giving a shit, is that it thinks it's the only country in the world. There are plenty of countries who are what you would consider "socialist", although they all laugh at the term, and they're doing just fine.

Countries keep going. Empires rise and fall. America will fall because it's an empire, and once it does, it can get back to the business of being a country, and we'll all be better off.

If anyone is counting on son of wealth, and misdirection specialist, who has spent much of his adult life attending affairs held by the most neocon of neocon outfits, the Federalist Society, guess again.

Lessig's the dood the bring out to coopt everything. Your pessimism is well founded!

From what I understand, their goal as a SuperPAC is to pour money into congressional races to help reform candidates win, with the ultimate goal of having them pass campaign finance laws that limit the influence of SuperPACs. They're essentially working against themselves, but that's the entire point - if SuperPACs are done away with, they'll have done their job.

From what I understand, their goal as a SuperPAC is to pour money into congressional races to help reform candidates win, with the ultimate goal of having them pass campaign finance laws that limit the influence of SuperPACs.

So, the winning move for any candidate is to support reform until elected and then make a reversal and enjoy the windfall from the status quo. How are they going to prevent that?

If supporters had any recourse when candidates turned on them, such recourse would have been used on Bush Jr. and Obama.

This is why I steer clear of politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth and try to avoid saying anything which might bother anyone - there's no telling what they'll actually do. I prefer someone like Chris Christie who says things that piss me off as well as things I agree with - it's pretty plain what he believes and what he intends to do. Whether or not you agree with his pos

How does an anti-pac work? Do they pay the TV stations not to run the ads from the other super-pacs?

They will have a hit list. If you don't support reform, they will fund your opponent. This is how Super Pacs work, they use their money to influence small changes in policy on the part of candidates. Like reform... it's an easy thing to support with very little opposition. The candidate doesn't even have to make a big deal out of it. He just changes some wording on his website and viola, he doesn't have to worry about this PAC giving his opponent money. His opponents thinking the same thing so now BOTH sides of race are pro-reform.

They will likely do well at first. But when an actual reform bill comes up, the Eye of Sauron will be on them. When this comes up for a vote every other Super Pac in the country will realize their power is being challenged and the full weight of the political establishment will turn on them. They will face literally billions of dollars of opposition. I really doubt their ability to fundraise that kind of cash.

I am for reform. I'm just not for the reform leftists want. I want to reform the system towards liberty, and away from accumulated power. I doubt that if I were a candidate, the MAYDAY PAC would support me, because I am not "liberal" enough in some areas. I really doubt that I would garner much of their attention. Yeah, they may be for reform, just one sided reform.

But at that stage the hope is that the masses of voters like these laws so much that voting against them would be political suicide. Therefore, the Super PACs will have to make these laws controversial in some way, and they will have to start as soon as they can. I have no talent in this area, so I don't know whether these ideas grab your guns, are socialist, harm your children, support terrorism, promote unions/homosexuality/abortion/government, continue the war on christmas, are an IRS complot, don't have

Well, there are two ways to reach the OP's conclusion. The first is to examine the history of "campaign finance reform", where you discover that the re-election rate for incumbents has gone UP after the passage of each such bill. The second is to examine the nature of elections. An incumbent can use government funds in order to make his constituents aware of who he is. A challenger, on the other hand, needs to make people aware of who he/she is.

Sounds like the second point is the root of the problem, incumbents shouldn't have more access to public campaign finance than any other candidate. So more campaign finance reform is needed to target that.

Incumbents are not using public campaign finance. They are sending out information to their constituents about laws that have been passed. They are appearing at ribbon cutting ceremonies. They are mentioned in news articles about laws they proposed. They are mentioned in news articles about current events. You cannot prevent incumbents from gaining publicity due to the fact that they are in office without making them completely unaccountable for their actions.

Well since there's nothing that can be done about it, why make the problem worse by allowing them to gather more money as well? To argue otherwise sounds too much like "X can never be eliminated therefore it makes no sense to attempt to restrict X" logic.

Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?

Having money is the one thing corporations are good at, and they're really, really good at it. If your strategy hinges on using money as influence, you're always going to lose, because they are FAR better and more practiced at that game than you are.

The only way to advance this particular agenda is to exploit the strengths that we have which corporations don't. We can fill the streets with real people, we can make disruptive spectacles and speak earnestly about social problems. Unlike corporations, we don't need to hide behind spokespeople and PACs, because we have authenticity. We are genuinely concerned about the future of our democracy, and though corporations can try hard to simulate that concern, it's never as authentic as the real thing.

The MAYDAY PAC is like David trying to beat Goliath in a fist fight. Don't fight on his terms, use the sling, idiot!

I think this is really what is bothering me about the MAYDAY PAC. The idea that the game can be beat by playing it on the terms of those who have rigged it... I understand the principle is to back politicians who will vote for reform, but a couple of seats -- even if it happens -- don't mean squat. Having a few bought-and-paid-for stooges who will vote for something doesn't actually work: it has to make it into a bill first, in a form that hasn't been mangled into the opposite of the intent, and brought to

The MAYDAY PAC is like David trying to beat Goliath in a fist fight. Don't fight on his terms, use the sling, idiot!

I believe the idea is that the money raised by "real people" will be used differently than that raised by corporations. The PAC is the funding mechanism which will be used to consolidate and coordinate "real people" who want to positively affect change. In other words: this is a campaign to raise the money for a sling.

Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?

No. You're going to get most of the people behind the unified cause of repairing the US electorial system. Big difference.Them donating money is a secondary side effect. The technical part of what is required to change something. The first step is to get *all* of the 99% of US citizens of their lazy fat asses and actually be willing to do something to 'effing repair their broken system. The money-mete

Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?

Having money is the one thing corporations are good at, and they're really, really good at it. If your strategy hinges on using money as influence, you're always going to lose, because they are FAR better and more practiced at that game than you are.

While corporations have more money in total they still need to decide what to spend where. Pumping $2mill in one race; rather than spreading over many, can have a significant influence on voters. I wonder if there is a spending threshold where more money has greatly diminished returns in terms of voter impact. If that is the case; you don't need to outspend other interests just spend enough to have an impact.

The only way to advance this particular agenda is to exploit the strengths that we have which corporations don't. We can fill the streets with real people, we can make disruptive spectacles and speak earnestly about social problems. Unlike corporations, we don't need to hide behind spokespeople and PACs, because we have authenticity. We are genuinely concerned about the future of our democracy, and though corporations can try hard to simulate that concern, it's never as authentic as the real thing.

The MAYDAY PAC is like David trying to beat Goliath in a fist fight. Don't fight on his terms, use the sling, idiot!

\

More importantly, we have votes. If people took the time to actually vote in elections, including p

Having money is the one thing corporations are good at, and they're really, really good at it. If your strategy hinges on using money as influence, you're always going to lose, because they are FAR better and more practiced at that game than you are.

Then think like a corporation. Hire their best lobbyists and strategists away with better offers.

Here is why the Snowden story got so big. One single little facet of the whole "government is spying on us" thing.One Program.Bullrun.

"Because of Snowden, we now know that the listeners undertook to do what they repeatedly promised respectable expert opinion they would never do. They always said they would not attempt to break the crypto that secures the global financial system.That was false.""...attempting to break the encryption that holds the globa

What does "get the money out of politics" mean? No one is allowed to tell people about their candidacy? The government would be the arbiter of election information? May Day indeed. Money is power. Politics is power. Anyone who thinks they will somehow remove money from politics is an idiot, or at best childlike.

All you can do is fight over *who* gets to wield it. At least now, bad as it is, I get to contribute to groups that represent my views, even if imperfectly.
Seriously, with all the abuses of other moneyed interests,(mine, of course never abuse the system) no one has ever even tried to explain something better to me.

This isn't directly related to Lessig's superpac, but it's part of a general trend where personal gain in politics trumps ethical conduct. It doesn't matter what the issue is (in this case health care, but it could be zoning issues, or tax subsidies, or anything). This is blatant corruption on both sides of the isle. It's almost as if it doesn't matter where the money comes from (unions, hollywood, large corpo

Believe it or not, many places in the world have gotten money out of politics (to the same extent that MAYDAY PAC wants to). Perhaps this may be surprising to you, but it actually is possible. I can only hope that my other fellow Americans aren't as defeatist as you are.

I support MAYDAY-PAC and WOLF-PAC, because I'm unwilling to bend over and take it. I invite you to clench your asshole and join me in taking a stand against our ass-rapist maste

What does "get the money out of politics" mean?[...]Seriously, with all the abuses of other moneyed interests,(mine, of course never abuse the system) no one has ever even tried to explain something better to me.

It means a lot of things.Just because you are ignorant doesn't meant there are no good answers.

Stop politicians from taking bribesProhibit members of Congress from soliciting and receiving contributions from any industry or entity they regulate, including those industries' lobbyists. Prohibit all fundraising during Congressional working hours.

Limit super PAC contributions and "coordination"Require SuperPACs to abide by the same contribution limits as other political committees. Toughen rules regarding SuperPACs' and other groups' coordination with political campaigns and political parties.

Prevent job offers as bribesClose the "revolving door" where elected representatives and senior staff sell off their legislative power for high-paying jobs. Stop them from negotiating jobs while in office and, once they leave, bar them from all lobbying activity for 5 years.

Call all people who lobby, lobbyistsSignificantly expand the definition of and register all lobbyists to prevent influencers from skirting the rules.

Limit lobbyist donationsLimit the amount that lobbyists and their clients can contribute to federal candidates, political parties, and political committees to $500 per year and limit lobbyist fundraising for political campaigns. Federal contractors are already banned from contributing to campaigns: extend that ban to lobbyists, high-level executives, government relations employees, and PACs of federal government contractors.

End secret moneyMandate full transparency of all political money. Require any organization that spends $10,000 or more on advertisements to elect or defeat federal candidates to file a disclosure report online with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours. List each of the donors who gave $10,000 or more to the organization to run such ads. This includes all PACs, 501c nonprofits, or other groups that engage in electioneering.

Empower all voters with a tax rebateBuild up the influence of voters by creating a biennial $100 Tax Rebate that they can use to make qualified contributions to federal candidates, political parties, and political committees. Flood elections with small-donor contributions that will offset the huge spenders. Candidates and political groups will only be eligible for these funds if they agree to a set of contribution limits: they will only accept money from small donors (giving $500 or less a year), other groups abiding by the limits, and the Tax Rebates themselves.

Disclose "bundling"Require federal candidates to disclose the names of individuals who "bundle" contributions for the member of Congress or candidate, regardless of whether such individuals are registered lobbyists.

Enforce the rulesStrengthen the Federal Election Commission's independence and strengthen the House and Senate ethics enforcement processes. Provide federal prosecutors the additional tools necessary to combat corruption, and prohibit lobbyists who fail to properly register and disclose their activities from engaging in federal lobbying activities for a period of two years.

The issue is that the US has always been an oligarchy of the rich, realistically it came into being due to a tax revolt.Money out of politics is not only possible, if you look else where in the world with functioning democracies and functioning electoral systems you can find examples:

If you believe that money is the only power then you have already been brainwashed to give up your democratic rights.

The average US Senate seat apparently costs ~ $7 million.

The entire Canadian Election spending per party ~ $21 million.

Obama spent well over $400 million for just his presidential campaign.

Think about what could be done with $379 million to address real problems in the US like education, healthcare etc....

The reason the rich are willing to waste their money is because they have too much of it (mainly because of tax law changes).The average CEO salary in the US is now $10 million per year! Yet they pay less than 20% in taxes!

If you did that the money that might otherwise be spent on political campaigns might actually do some good like funding education or public healthcare etc...

But then according to your brainwashing program the only power is money and any country that tries to democratically regulate the market (an artificial construct that only exists because of the enforcement of property laws) must a communist country (Canada) how else can we have publicly funded healthcare...keep drinking the kool-aid, in the mean time we'll outlive you. Yes life expectancy is higher here, as is quality of life.

.... even Warren Buffett thinks it's time to tax the rich --- sorry, Charlie, once again you've demonstrated you are one of the easily led sheeple.

Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has been in federal tax court for years, fighting not to pay the zillions they owe in federal taxes.

Buffett was chair of Salomon Brothers, one of the premier Wall Street firms which lobbied for the adoption of what he calls "economic weapons of mass destruction" --- credit derivatives --- which Buffett then hired lobbyists to

At least now, bad as it is, I get to contribute to groups that represent my views, even if imperfectly.
Seriously, with all the abuses of other moneyed interests,(mine, of course never abuse the system) no one has ever even tried to explain something better to me.

Here in Québec we have a campaign contribution limit of $100 per person, and a total campaign spending limit for each party of roughly $1 per elector in the province. This ensured that no one had a disproportionate financial impact in the election, while still allowing me to contribute to the group that I wished. Despite what may seem to be low limits, we had a healthy campaign, with a diverse number of parties. And considering that 4 different parties managed to elect representatives to the assembly,

I'm finding quite curious the contrast between the comments that appeared the first time [slashdot.org] this story was discussed in/. and now. Whereas in the first time the comments were balanced and generally positive, now most comments are violently against it. I wonder what caused this change. Perhaps now that it is clear that they are getting money and have a chance of making a difference the corporate shills have woken up?

The corporations can easily outspend this PAC with a small increase. On top of that, they are trying to buy corrupt politicians, who are just as likely to turn again when someone offers them better coke and prostitutes. I smell a get rich scheme, nothing more.

Seriously? This is literally trading tax dollars for campaign dollars. What the hell kind of reform is this? Even with the proposed $50 limit on the credit it's a bad idea -- and what good is $50 going to do, anyway?

I've seen inklings of a smear campaign against this movement already, trying to exploit the same stupid red meat issues (abortion, gun control, taxes) to alienate potential supporters that would otherwise emphatically agree that corporations are not people and should no longer control our government.

Sorry, folks, but it is sooo easy to predict this will all amount to nothing, once Lawrence Lessig's name is mentioned.

Talk about your professional misdirection specialist, scion of wealth, the guy who couldn't be bothered to tell Aaron Swartz that federal prosecutors had dropped one of the punishments against Aaron they were pushing for --- namely forbidding Aaron from ever going online again, and then Aaron committed suicide!

Lawrence Lessig, the dood that attended the second-to-the-last Bilderberger

According to the CBO: "A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."

Corporate income taxes account for about $250-$200B in annual revenue. Compliance costs for business to determine how much tax they owe is also estimated at about $200-$300B annually. In o

What you fail to realize is that the wealthy are not dragons that sit on their piles of money. Money has no value until it is trading hands. The "wealthy" do 2 things:
1) Spend their money
2) Invest their money to... MAKE MOAR MONEY!

Both these actions create jobs and spur the creation of businesses to produce things to be acquired and or consumed, and pay employees to produce or for services. Employees make money, investors try to invest wisely to make a positive return on the money invested, everyone wins with ZOMG! TRICKLE DOWN!

Money hidden under the mattress does no any good.

I agree that money only has value when it moves. But making more money does not necessarily create jobs. It might. Or it might not. One might make more money by doubling widget production capacity with twice the factories, twice the labor, etc. Or one might make more money by finding a way to make the same number of widgets with less labor, thus increasing profit. Maybe it's some of both. Money does not care how it is made. Capitalism means getting a return on capital. Sometimes the side effects of returnin

So the money in all those accounts in various island states, Switzerland and Luxembourg is what, 'invested'?Also, 'investing' in commodities isn't really investing. It's more like a currency exchange; the only jobs that such activities drive are in the financial sector.

Ultimately, an economy is demand-driven; if you want to stimulate a certain economy, you need to look at what that economy can provide (without to much extra effort) and then put money into the hands of the people that want what said economy

Right, because lobbying and funding political campaigns to influence what laws are instated will disappear because of the FairTax (tm). If you think tax breaks are the only thing these lobbyists are interested in, you are blissfully naive.

No, you said: "a better plan to get less money in politics"As long as a company has money burning in its pocket and ways and means to get it to people that can greatly influence the operations of that company, it will throw the money at those people. Parliaments must be held to the strictest of standards when it comes to corruption and nepotism, not stripped of power.

And just how do we get from here to there? An overarching theme like 'drastically smaller government' sounds great. Until you get to the messy details. How do you de fang the NSA? Get the Pentagon to accept some rational budget? Keep Texas from starting (another) war with Mexico?

You can 'reboot' the system and hope to hell it comes up with a command prompt instead of "Disk Not Found". Or you can (slowly) work at the edges to clean the system up. No it doesn't work well and it's slow as hell - certain

And just how do we get from here to there? An overarching theme like 'drastically smaller government' sounds great. Until you get to the messy details. How do you de fang the NSA? Get the Pentagon to accept some rational budget? Keep Texas from starting (another) war with Mexico?

Vote for different representatives, representatives that actually cut the budget. It has happened in the past and it's happening elsewhere.

They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has ruled (correctly) that spending money to print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech. So how "fundamental" can any reform actually be? Are they planning to amend the Constitution so the government can arrest people for making videos or publishing books?

I can't believe people are giving money to these guys.

Yes they are. You have to read their FAQ lolBasically all they are doing at first is planning to back the opponents of candidates that do not support "reform" They don't have to be specific, they just need to state they want "reform" in any form.

Later they will do more fund raising and get behind a particular proposal. The specifically mention 5. 2 democratic, 2 republican and 1 bipartisan.

So if you're donating to this particular campaign you're donating to get congress to agree that "Reform" is an issue th

print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech

Is it not free speech to do these things? Or you're just opposed to people doing these things for a cause you do not support? You are part of the problem because you think the problem is free speech for causes you don't support. I'll be dollars to doughnuts that you support your side (I don't know if you're (D) or (R)) having the right to "print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics". My guess, is you're a liberal though because liberals are well known for their hypocrisy regarding fre

print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech

Is it not free speech to do these things? Or you're just opposed to people doing these things for a cause you do not support? You are part of the problem because you think the problem is free speech for causes you don't support. I'll be dollars to doughnuts that you support your side (I don't know if you're (D) or (R)) having the right to "print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics". My guess, is you're a liberal though because liberals are well known for their hypocrisy regarding free speech.

It's not a matter of what you want to say, it's how loud you shout.

Money buys a bigger megaphone. And unfortunately, we tend to elect whoever shouts the loudest.

So, do you really believe you get a good system of government when the more money you have the more access you have to political speech?

Or do you end up with a system which is heavily skewed to the wishes of a handful of wealthy people -- which is pretty much what you have now.

If rich people can pay lots of money to convince government to lower their taxes while cutting services for everybody else... well, sooner or later, that 'everybody else' might decide they've had enough and do something about it.

And that didn't work out so well for Marie Antoinette and others who felt they should be entitled to cal the shots.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Unless you have lots of money, in which case you're more equal, and the governed be damned because you can make what you want happens. So, we're back to "four legs good, two legs better".

And then the governed decide that they're tired of putting up with your shit.

If you're going to build your society around what the wealthy can afford to buy in terms of political action, you will end up with an inherently unjust society.

So, do you really believe you get a good system of government when the more money you have the more access you have to political speech?

Of course he doesn't believe that, but those bills are sponsored by a bunch of Democrats. Don't be fooled by how the political process worked in the past; these days, the only item of importance in any given bill is the letter between the sponsor's name and home state.

Add to that a clause that you can only fund politicians within your own state.So you can fund any locally based politician and a presidential campaign within your own state, but presidential campaign funds cannot be used in other states.

I think in is entirely in the realm of possibility that if they were truly very effective in their goals we would see a tilt toward one party rule.

I hate to break this to you pal, but we already have one party rule. You might think that distractions like gay marriage or healthcare or whatever else are the issues, but you're wrong. Those aren't the reasons that the people of Congress are there, those are the distractions to try and keep you divided from whoever you don't agree with on that issue.

The goal of Congress is to stay in power, regardless of which side they sit on. They're all there to help each other. The point of the PAC is to change tha

The name of the PAC is May Day, which is a pro union and pro leftist holiday. It is a prominent holiday in many socialist countries. I am not sure why that is a good pick for a supposed non-partisan PAC with a mission to end PAC money.

Really? You're not sure? You don't understand that mayday [wikipedia.org] is an international distress call? The registered name of the organization is "Mayday PAC", not "May Day PAC". In some places it is stylized as "MAYDAY PAC". There is never a space after "May" as you wrote.